Search

OBJECTIVES 1)To analyze evidence about poor adherence / non-adherence including their prevalences, associated factors, and interventions in ulcerative colitis (UC) patients; 2)To provide a framework to improve poor adherence / non-adherence. METHODS A qualitative approach was applied. A literature review was performed using Medline. Primary searches were performed with Mesh and free texts to identify articles that analyzed prevalence, causes, associated factors, and interventions designed to improve poor adherence/ non-adherence in UC patients. The studies' quality was evaluated using the Oxford scale. The results were presented and discussed in a nominal group meeting, comprising a multidisciplinary committee of six gastroenterologists, one psychologist, one nurse, and one patient. Several overarching principles and recommendations were generated. A consensus procedure was implemented via a Delphi process during which each committee member produced a score ranging from 0 = totally disagree to 10 = totally agree. Agreement was considered if at least 70% of the participants voted ≥7. RESULTS The literature review included 75 articles. Non-adherence rates ranged from 7%-72%. We found a great variability in the methods employed to assess adherence, associated factors, and interventions designed to improve adherence. Overall, eight overarching principles and six recommendations were generated, all of them achieving the pre-established agreement level, including, among others, the identification, classification, and management of non-adherence. CONCLUSIONS Poor adherence / non-adherence are common in UC patients, being a relevant clinical concern. Health professionals should address this issue and actively involve the patients in implementing effective and individualized interventions to improve adherence.

Background and aims Our objective was to define, describe and organize (on the basis of consensus) the patient's preferences in the management of ulcerative colitis (UC), in order to further incorporate them in daily practice and improve patients satisfaction, adherence to the treatment and quality of care. Methods Qualitative study. A narrative literature review in Medline using Mesh and free-text terms was conducted to identify articles on UC patient preferences as well as clinical scenarios that may influence the preferences. The results were presented and discussed in a multidisciplinary nominal group meeting composed of six gastroenterologists, one primary care physician, one nurse practitioner and one expert patient. Key clinical scenarios and patient preferences were then defined, generating a series of points to consider and recommendations. The level of agreement with the final selection of preferences was established following a Delphi process. Results The narrative review retrieved 69 articles of qualitative design and moderate quality. The following key clinical scenarios were identified: diagnosis, follow-up, surgery, and special situations/patients profiles such as adolescents or women. Patient preferences were classified into information, treatment (pharmacological and non-pharmacological), follow-up, relations with health professionals, relations with the health system and administration. Finally, 11 recommendations on patient preferences for UC in relation to its management reached the level of agreement established. Conclusion The consensual description of patient's preferences contribute to identify different areas for improvement in healthcare practice.